Community participation in primary health care projects of the Muldersdrift Health and Development Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After numerous teething problems (1974-1994), the Department of Nursing Education of WITS University took responsibility for the Muldersdrift Health and Development Programme (MHDP). The nursing science students explored and implemented an empowerment approach to community participation. The students worked with MHDP health workers to improve health through community participation, in combination with primary health care (PHC) activities and the involvement of a variety of community groups. As the PHC projects evolved over time, the need arose to evaluate the level of community participation and how much community ownership was present over decision-making and resources. This led to the question "What was the level of community participation in PHC projects of the MHDP?" Based on the question the following objectives were set, i.e. (i) to evaluate the community participation in PHC initiatives; (ii) to provide the project partners with motivational affirmation on the level of community participation criteria thus far achieved; (iii) to indicate to participants the mechanisms that should still be implemented if they wanted to advance to higher levels of community participation; (iv) to evaluate the MHDP's implementation of a people-centred approach to community participation in PHC; and (v) the evaluation of the level of community participation in PHC projects in the MHDP. An evaluative, descriptive, contextual and quantitative research design was used. Ethical standards were adhered to throughout the study. The MHDP had a study population of twenty-three (N=23) PHC projects. A purposive sample of seven PHC initiatives was chosen according to specific selection criteria and evaluated according to the "Criteria to evaluate community participation in PHC projects" instrument (a quantitative tool). Structured group interviews were done with PHC projects' executive committee members. The Joint Management Committee's data was collected through mailed self-administered questionnaires. Validity and reliability were ensured according to strict criteria. Thereafter results were analysed and plotted on a radiating arm continuum. The following factors had component scores: organization, leadership, resources, management; needs and skills. A spider graph was produced after each factor's continuum was connected in a spoke figuration that brought them together at the base where participation was at its most narrow. The results are presented and a graph and discussion is provided on each of the PHC projects. The research results indicated that although community participation was broadened, there was minimal success in forcing a shift in power over decision-making and resources. This demonstrated that power over planning and resources should remain in the hands of the partners if community participation was to remain progressive and sustained. Results furthermore indicated that the people-centred approach to With regard to the Joint Management Committee's evaluation of community participation, it was concluded that power over decision-making and resources remained with health professionals rather than with the community, and that a people-centred approach had not been adopted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".